Hey again! Well I'm quite happy with my 9-10 hours really, but everyone works differently! I don't have a long-term partner (although I am dating someone) so it's not like I have to feel guilty for being at work and not at home with them or anything. My family don't live in the same area, so if I go to see them it has to be at the weekend anyway, which I do quite regularly as we are a close family. I suppose if things were different and I had children or something maybe I would have different priorities and spend less time on my work, but I feel quite happy with my work-life balance as it is right now...I have time for family, friends, hobbies, and fun, so I'm more than content! Best, KB

======= Date Modified 14 Jul 2010 15:07:57 =======
Hey Rubrik! Well with a PhD I think you get out what you put in. I tend to treat my PhD as a job, and work roughly 9-10 hours per day on it. Some weekends I work, others I don't- but there are plenty of people who put in far fewer hours and still pass within the timeframe. I still have time to see friends, enjoy my hobbies etc, although I suppose things will get more intense when I'm in the write-up stage (I'm currently at the end of second year). One consideration is what exactly you want to get out of a PhD- you can just do enough to pass, or you can also aim for publications, conference presentations, teaching experience etc, all of which will count for a lot if you choose to go into academia afterwards. I suppose in one sense it is a hard life, but it's a life that I personally find challenging in a good way, and extremely rewarding. I can't think of anything I would rather be doing, and I think this is mainly down to my love for the topic. If you're really passionate about what you're researching, then it doesn't seem like so much hard work! So to answer your question, yes, it is possible to have a life whilst you're doing your PhD, but you might find that you have to re-prioritise a few things! Best, KB

Hey! With respect to the masters, it depends on your subject. For some subjects a masters isn't necessary, whereas for others it is a requirement. In the pure sciences people often go from BSc to PhD, yet in other more competitive subjects you wouldn't have a chance without an MSc, so do your research on that one! I'm in clinical psychology and I'd have really struggled to make the leap from BSc to PhD without a masters- the part taught part research MSc I did was the perfect preparation for the PhD, and in our department the MSc is an entry requirement for the PhD anyway. But they are expensive and usually unfunded, so check out whether you will definitely need one to have a chance of getting a PhD! Best, KB

Hey Sarah, I really wouldn't take it to heart. Is it for a presentation or a poster? If I were you, I'd be determined to go along and prove them wrong by highlighting exactly what is different or original about what you're doing. There's so little information in an abstract anyway that it's difficult to judge the content of the actual presentation itself based on just that, so I wouldn't pay much attention to the comment. The research world is full of judgements and feedback on your work- some of which will be useful and some of which will be irrelevant or resulting from mis-interpretations, incorrect assumptions etc (you can tell I've been responding to reviewers' comments today!!). Just smile sweetly and carry on! And congrats on being accepted! Best,KB

Hey Kizzy- that's pretty much what I'm paying to share a really nice flat with another girl (£375 each per month plus bills) and I live in a really cheap area of the UK. To be honest, where I am ensuite halls are almost £100 per week anyway, so there isn't really much in it, but I would far rather be in a nice flat than in halls! There are cheaper places to rent round here, for as little as £200 per month, but they're really grotty! So I think £400 isn't really that bad, although it is frustrating to be throwing away that much money on rent each month. Best, KB

Hey everyone! Seeing as so many of you were kind enough to offer support when I posted a few weeks ago about not feeling well, I just thought I would let you know that after a couple of weeks off (and some extra medication!) things are looking much better! I had a lovely lazy week off (and would strongly recommend a lazy week off to everyone!) and then felt able to manage my conference presentation last week, which went really well. I also had some good reviewers' comments back on a paper I had submitted, so that cheered me up a bit, although I still need to make quite a few changes! But at least now I have the energy and enthusiasm to do them! I am going to make sure in the future I try to build more regular breaks into my schedule, to prevent another complete burn-out/loss of sanity, and recommend that everyone else does the same! It can be so hard to take time out, but I can't believe how much it has helped. Thanks again everyone (up) KB

======= Date Modified 12 Jul 2010 14:50:41 =======
Hey Ev, glad to hear that things are picking up for you and that you are getting there with the work. I have been having a difficult time recently, but I have just had a fortnight off (well- with a conference in the middle for 3 days, so a week and a half I guess!) and I feel so much better for it. I wasn't planning to take any time off but reached breaking point a few weeks ago- believe me, time off really does help. All I did was have lie-ins, see friends, go to the gym, read (non-academic) books etc, and I have come back completely re-energized! I know it can be hard to find enough time to take time off, but if you can find a week it might really help- it sounds as though you are burnt out and need to put your feet up once this conference is done and dusted! Best, KB

Edited just to add- it was my first proper conference last week too, it really wasn't so scary! It was a really friendly conference and it was actually quite nice just to be away from the desk and have a change of scene. So fingers crossed for you :)

Hey! I think you should try to get some experience if you can- the job market is so competitive that it might just work in your favour. Given that a lot of academics have to teach at some point even if they are mainly into research, it would be a good idea to be able to put it on your CV. I'm in Psychology, also just going into third year, and have managed to get a bit of experience teaching 2nd and 3rd year undergrads on different modules, and am also supervising MSc students. I'm not saying that I have loved every moment of it, but I'm glad I've done it! I'm sure if you want to volunteer to do a bit of teaching, they will find you some to do! Best, KB

Hey there! Sorry to hear you're feeling so rubbish. I really wouldn't lose hope over the MPhil though- most masters degrees are actually not that hard to get onto if you are prepared to self-fund, which is what most masters students do. I did a combined taught/research based masters and there were several people on the course who had BScs at 2.2 level. I also have a friend who got a 2.2, a pass at masters, and is now on a fully-funded PhD! I would make it clear on your application that you had difficult circumstances during your MA, and put in an application. Is there anyone else you can get a reference letter from so you don't have to use the one that isn't so good? Best, KB

I agree, I really don't think you would have a chance of a research associate position without a PhD. In my field (clinical psychology) you usually need an MSc to get a research assistant position, but anything 'higher up' than that requires a PhD. And some people with PhDs take research assistant positions too- some of these posts are really good for experience even after a PhD and some are also pretty well paid. It's not necessarily about whether you are capable of doing the job or not, a lot of it is just to do with what other applicants will have, qualification-wise. Unfortunately in academia, for the most part there is only so far you can go until you need a PhD to get any further, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions! Best, KB

Hey! I had a similar dilemma to you a year or so ago. My PhD is mainly quantitative, but I am also doing 2 small qualitative studies, with 10 participants in each (30-90 minutes of interview per person), which I am analysing using a thematic methodology. I attended a conference related to the use of this methodology, and quite a few people said that if the amount of data was manageable then it was good to do your first qualitative analysis by hand (e.g. back to pen & paper, or rather print-outs, scissors and sellotape!) to get a good feel for how it's done. So I did, and I actually really enjoyed doing it- there is something about doing it by hand that gives you a very good grasp of the procedure, and I was glad I hadn't relied on software for my first analysis. Having said that, it would be completely unfeasible to do it by hand if you have a large set of data, and if you know that you are going to do this kind of analysis in the future, then it might be a good investment to learn to use the software. The one our department uses is NVivo, but I don't know much about it. I am planning to do my second analysis by hand as well- it isn't that much of a bind as long as you are organised and as I said, don't have a massive amount of data! Good luck with it! KB

Hey Kk, I'm afraid I can't answer your question myself, but I remember a forum user a while ago who appealed and I think they won their appeal. I don't remember the details but perhaps someone else can? Or perhaps you can search for that thread? Best wishes, KB

Hey! Most journals have a peer-review policiy, which means that when you submit your paper, a copy of it will be sent to two or three anonymous reviewers (people who are considered to be suitably qualified/experienced to pass judgement on your work), who review it and send comments back to the editor. Based on this, the editor will make a decision whether to accept the paper, accept it as long as certain changes are made, ask you to resubmit it if extensive changes are required, or reject it altogether. Usually there is also an initial screening by the editor, so that if the paper is completely unsuitable (e.g. a review paper is sent to a journal that only accepts empirical papers) then it will rejected straight away, instead of being sent to the reviewers. In terms of references, if there are any discrepancies between those mentioned in the text and those listed in the reference section, the proofreaders will pick up on this if the referees haven't already done so. I haven't heard of any reviewers not going beyond the introduction section- reviewers are able to refuse to review the paper if they haven't got the time, so I would think that anyone who was not prepared to read the whole paper would just refuse to review it at all. I have heard complaints about the reviewers being unsuitable- some journals let you suggest who suitable reviewers might be, but for many the editorial team make the decision. Of course, once your research is published, if people find fault with it in some way they can comment on that in future publications of their own etc. There are some journals which don't use a peer-review system, but we have always been recommended to steer well clear of those- journals without a peer-review system don't tend to be very well regarded. I should point out that I am doing a PhD in Clinical Psychology- some of this information may be different for people in different fields! Hope that helps, KB

Hey Jayeta! It depends a little on whether you are looking for an advertised PhD or whether you have your own proposal that you need to get funding for. If you are looking for an advertised PhD that already has funding then these can crop up pretty much any time from the beginning of the academic year through to summer, so you just have to keep an eye on what's being advertised. If you have your own proposal and want to apply for funding for it then you need to start as early as possible. I did it this way round and had put in several applications for funding by Christmas in my MSc year. So keep checking findaphd.com all year round for advertised PhDs, and if you have your own proposal that you want funding for then you would need to start thinking about who could supervise it and where the funding might be obtained from as early as possible into your MSc. It's easier to get an advertised funded PhD than to get funding for your own proposal, but if you have a specific idea in mind then it is possible to do it that way way round, and it gives you more flexibility regarding what you want to investigate and how! Good luck with it, KB

Hey there! When applying for a PhD you can either apply for one that is already being advertised, or you can come up with your own topic, write a proposal, and look for a supervisor and funding for it. It sounds like you have your own ideas about what you want to do, so it would make sense to look around to see if there is anyone in particular that you think would be able to supervise your topic, and contact them to see if they would be interested. If you find a potential supervisor you will then need to look for funding, unless you are prepared to self fund. If they're not interested in supervising you, then it's probably pretty pointless to keep emailing them about it. If they are interested in something similar, then they would probably let you know, and you can decide whether your interests coincide to the extent that you can come up with a topic that interests you both. Whether you need an MSc or not depends on your subject. For a lot of subjects you won't be required to take an MSc, but for some subjects it is a requirement, so that is something you will need to check out with the uni/supervisor you are interested in. Hope that helps! KB